USA V. JUAN TEJADA-ZEPEDA, No. 18-10084 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-10084 D.C. No. 5:17-cr-00352-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN TEJADA-ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Juan Tejada-Zepeda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Tejada-Zepeda contends that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) when it imposed a term of supervised release even though he is likely to be deported when his prison term ends. He suggests that the court was prohibited from imposing supervised release absent a finding that his was an unusual case. Tejada-Zepeda cites no authority to support this claim. In any event, the court expressly considered the particular circumstances of Tejada-Zepeda’s case, including his motivation to return to the United States and his history of engaging in criminal conduct when he is in the United States, and found that a supervised release term would serve the goals of deterrence and protection of the public. This was consistent with the Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5, and the court’s obligation to explain the sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Tejada-Zepeda also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 692-93. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10084
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
